Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1845/2014

Case between Geetha Kumar.P.T vs Santhosh Kumar Yadav regarding recalling witnesses and reopening evidence.

Court
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Judge
Smt. Sincy Jacob
Order Date
2025-12-11
Duration
approximately-11 years 11 months
Case Code No.
1845
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Geetha Kumar.P.T as the plaintiff and Santhosh Kumar Yadav as the defendant. The petition was filed to reopen evidence regarding the recovery of salary, which the defendant claims is forged.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition to reopen evidence was allowed by the court.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition to reopen evidence was allowed by the court.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that reopening the evidence was warranted due to the disputing amount concerning the plaintiff's salary recovery.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
this court is of the view that the petition is liable to be allowed.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Geetha Kumar.P.T
Party Age
54
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Santhosh Kumar Yadav
Party Age
49
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Nemom V.Sajeev
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Adv. Pattom.K.Ramachandran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petition to reopen evidence was allowed.
Evidence:
However, this court has not considered the merits of the case in this petition what is considered is that, whether the evidence is to be reopened in the light of relevancy with respect to the contentions raised by both parties.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The court refers to the oral evidence provided by witnesses regarding the recovery of salary.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Dispute over salary recovery
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2014

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 01/01/2014 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Mon, 12/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won